Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

EDINBURGH MERCHANT COMPANY ENDOWMENTS (AMENDMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to the Edinburgh Merchant Company Endowments"; presented by Mr. T. Johnston, and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed [Bill 1].

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Hydro-Electric Development (Committee's Report)

Captain W. T. Shaw: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the date upon which he received the Report of the Committee on Hydro-Electric Development in Scotland; whether the Report will be made available to the public, and when?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I hope to be in a position at no distant date both to publish the Report, which I received on 25th August last, and to indicate the Government's attitude to its proposals.

Captain Shaw: Have the main features of this Report been made available to local authorities in Scotland, or to any other body?

Mr. Johnston: No, Sir, the Report has not yet been published.

Captain Shaw: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was stated in some of the Scottish papers that last Friday he had a meeting in Scotland with the local authorities to deal with this matter? Am I to suppose that that report is erroneous?

Mr. Johnston: I am not responsible for the newspapers.

Land Sales

Mr. McKinlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the sale of 40,000 acres of the lands of Lochaber; and the name of the purchaser?

Mr. Johnston: Yes, Sir. I am informed that the purchaser is Mr. H. J. Kennaway, a land agent in Edinburgh. But no disposition has yet reached the Sasines Office for recording.

Mr. McKinlay: Is it a tribute to the work of the 51st Highland Division that these vulgar sales should take place at a time like this?

Mr. Johnston: I cannot express any opinion on that.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Do these purchases, according to my right hon. Friend's knowledge, precede any move for the setting-up of another power scheme, such as that which has been rejected three times in this House already?

Mr. Johnston: No, Sir, I can give an assurance on that.

Mr. Kirkwood: Has not the time arrived for the Secretary of State for Scotland to step in and take over this land? This matter is very interesting to Scotland at the moment, and the Secretary of State knows it. I want an answer.

Mr. Johnston: The Question on the Order Paper is not whether this land is worth purchasing by the State or not. I cannot say whether it is.

Mr. Kirkwood: All land is worth purchasing by the State.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what acre age of Scottish land has been sold since September, 1939; the total amount paid for it; and what estates have changed ownership more than once during that period?

Mr. Johnston: Information of the kind desired by the hon. Member could only be obtained after many days' search in the General Register of Sasines; but it would be incomplete. In many cases the disposition in favour of a purchaser would not disclose the acreage disponed and in


most cases the disposition would not contain a map from which acreage could be calculated. Further, there will be many cases of sale where dispositions have not yet been recorded; and others where no record is to be made, the transactions resting on correspondence or contracts of sale, or unrecorded dispositions.

Mr. Davidson: Is it not a fact that all such land sales since the war started have required the sanction of the Secretary of State for Scotland, or must be made with his full knowledge? Has my right hon. Friend any powers to object to such sales taking place?

Mr. Johnston: None whatever.

Mr. Davidson: Can he explain how it is, then, that the Government state that they have passed legislation dealing with the taking-over of both labour and private property?

Mr. Johnston: I cannot relate that Question to the Question on the Paper.

Mr. Sloan: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is able to answer as to the amount of land that has changed hands more than once since the beginning of the war?

Mr. Johnston: No, Sir; I have already given the reasons in detail.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any special measures are being taken to prevent speculative dealing in such land in Scotland as is likely to be affected by the reconstruction proposals of the reports of the Council of ex-Secretaries of State, with special regard to those areas in which hydro-electrical development is anticipated; and whether he will make a statement?

Mr. Johnston: The Interim Report of the Uthwatt Committee recommended that, to obviate increases in the cost of land required for public purposes due to speculative dealings, the compensation payable in public acquisition or control of land should not exceed sums based on the standard of values at 31st March, 1939. The Government have already announced that they accept this principle and will in due course introduce legislation to give effect to it.

Mr. MacMillan: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite convinced that no danger can arise of speculation in land values, after

the hint we had the other day in a speech by an ex-Secretary of State for Scotland?

Mr. McKinlay: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the titles are in order, and would he refer to his own "Noble Families"?

Mr. Johnston: The point is that the Sasines Office do not require to get all transactions to priority dispositions recorded there.

Illegal Trawling

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action it is proposed to take regarding the trawler against which a complaint was lodged some weeks ago by local fishermen for persistent illegal trawling in Broad Bay, Isle of Lewis; and what early action is proposed to safeguard the fish-spawning grounds and livelihood of the Isles fishermen at present on active service?

Mr. Johnston: The complaint referred to in the Question has been reported to, and is now being investigated by, the Crown authorities. As regards the second part of the Question, owing to naval requirements, it has not been possible to maintain the normal fishery protection service, but the naval authorities are assisting in the patrol whenever possible. I am advised that the inshore fisheries are not being seriously affected by illegal trawling but the matter is kept under observation.

Mr. MacMillan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that local officials on the spot have given practically no assistance so far, and that, under the very eyes of the inshore fishers and their families, whose livelihood is being spoilt, this trawler is getting away with it?

Mr. Johnston: My information is contrary to that.

Mr. MacMillan: The right hon. Gentleman's information is wrong. I have seen it with my own eyes.

Mr. Johnston: My information is directly to the contrary.

Advisory Council on Education

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the terms of reference of the revived Advisory Council on Education, and the names and qualifications of its members?

Mr. Johnston: The general terms of reference of the new Advisory Council on Education are contained in the Education (Scotland) Advisory Council Order, 1942, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy, and with his permission I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the members of the Council.

Mr. Lindsay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his persistence and practical interest in this subject have given great satisfaction in Scotland?

Following is the list referred to:

Sir William Hamilton Fyfe, LL.D., F.R.S.C. (Chairman), Lord Provost Garnet Wilson (Vice-Chairman).

Members:

Miss Agnes M. Allison, William Barry, Esq., Lord Provost John M. Biggar, Professor E. P. Cathcart, C.B.E., LL.D., F.R.S., J. B. Clark, Esq., C.B.E., LL.D., Ernest Greenhill, Esq., Major E. G. R. Lloyd, D.S.O., M.P., William McClelland, Esq., Mrs. Bridget M. McEwen, Patrick McGee, Esq., Neil Maclean, Esq., M.P., R. C. T. Mair, Esq., O.B.E., M.C., Adam M. Millar, Esq., Miss Agnes B. Muir, Ronald M. Munro, Esq., J. E. S. Nisbet, Esq., James J. Robertson, Esq., F.R.S.E., J. Rothnie, Esq., J. Cameron Smail, Esq., O.B.E., F.R.S.E., W. Crampton Smith, Esq., O.B.E., J. Henderson Stewart, Esq., M.P., Miss Etna J. Taylor, Robert Taylor, Esq.

Pensions Appeal Tribunals

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has had any consultations with the appropriate medical authorities in Scotland as to whether there is a sufficiency of doctors to serve should pensions hardship tribunals be set up by the Government?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womerstey): rose—

Mr. Davidson: On a point of Order. May I draw attention to the wording of the Question? I specifically asked the Secretary of State for Scotland
whether he has had any consultations with the appropriate medical authorities in Scotland
on this question. I submit that when I put this Question to the Secretary of State for Scotland he can answer "Yes" or "No." The Question is not addressed to the Minister of Pensions at all.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member must answer in his own way.

Mr. Davidson: I am asking for your protection, Sir, to prevent a Minister sending a Question to another Minister when he is asked, as Secretary of State for Scotland, for a definite reply.

Mr. Kirk wood: And that Minister is paid for the job, too, although he may not be drawing his salary.

Mr. Speaker: We must get on with Questions.

Sir W. Womersley: I have been asked to reply. This is a matter in which the position in Scotland cannot be considered in isolation. When pensions appeal tribunals are established they must cover the whole of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the statements recently made in this House relate to the absence of the necessary personnel to staff an adequate number of such tribunals.

Mr. Davidson: Has the right hon. Gentleman, in any decisions he has reached on this question affecting Scotland, ever consulted the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Scottish Office?

Sir W. Womersley: Yes, certainly. I might point out that the Medical Personnel Priority Committee, to which I have had to apply to see whether there was any medical personnel available, have two representatives for Scotland on that board.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERSONAL INJURIES (CIVILIANS) SCHEME

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of Civil Defence workers, permanently injured through service in Scotland, since November, 1939, giving respective figures for men and women, and the total amount of compensation paid, respectively?

Sir W. Womersley: I have been asked to reply. I regret that the information desired by the hon. Member is not available and could not be obtained without a disproportionate expenditure of time and labour.

Mr. Davidson: In view of the fact that the Government have intimated their policy with regard to compensation to injured Civil Defence workers, how can the Government come to decisions with regard to the cost to the nation and other important factors if they do not know the number of injured Civil Defence workers?

Sir W. Womersley: We do not maintain separate statistics for England and Scotland; we take both together.

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, having regard to the fact that the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1939, was passed through all stages and received the Royal Assent in two days, namely, 2nd and 3rd September, 1939, and that this Act deprived His Majesty's subjects of their rights at Common Law, also that as a result many persons of both sexes have received inadequate compensation in respect of fatal and other injuries, he will appoint a committee to report as to the operation of this Act and as to amendments which experience has shown to be necessary?

Sir W. Womersley: I have been asked to reply. I do not accept the hon. Member's statement that inadequate compensation has been paid in respect of fatal and other injuries sustained as the result of enemy action, and I am not prepared to advise the Government to appoint a Committee as suggested.

Sir H. Williams: Were not the subjects' rights at Common Law taken away from them in a Bill rushed through Parliament?

Oral Answers to Questions — STATUTE OF WESTMINSTER

Mr. Ralph Etherton: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs on what date the various nations of the British Commonwealth ratified the Statute of Westminster; which nations have failed to ratify; and what representations have been made thereon?

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans): The terms of the Statute of Westminster were approved in advance, before its passage through Parliament here, by the Parliaments of all the Dominions. The Statute contains a clause which was inserted at the request of the Governments of the Commonwealth of Australia and of New Zealand under which certain of its provisions would not apply to those two Dominions until adopted by the respective' Parliaments. A Bill for this purpose was recently passed by the Australian Parliament and received the Royal Assent on 9th October. No such legislalation has yet been passed by the New

Zealand Parliament. The hon. Member will see from the above that no question of representations arises.

Mr. Etherton: Does not the Minister anticipate that a Bill similar to that introduced in the Australian Parliament will be introduced in the New Zealand Parliament?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: I have heard nothing about any such Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND (ARMED RAID FROM EIRE)

Professor Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether his attention has been called to the attempt made on 26th October by a party of seven men, armed with tommyguns and revolvers, who had commandeered a motor-car at Dundalk, in Eire, to burn down the British Customs hut at Carrowcarnon, County Armagh; whether he has made representations to the Government of Eire against this renewed use of Eire territory for an armed raid on Northern Ireland; and whether he has demanded a refund of the damage done to the Customs hut, or whether the cost of restoration will fall on the Government of Northern Ireland or be defrayed by the British Government?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: I have seen reports in the Press of the incident to which the hon. Member refers. As regards representations to the Eire Government, I have nothing to add to the replies given to similar Questions in the past. The question of the incidence of the cost of repairs to the hut will, I understand, be further considered.

Professor Savory: Can my hon. Friend inform the House whether anyone has been brought to justice for these repeated raids organised in Eire and carried out on Northern Ireland; and how many attempts have been made from Eire in the last 10 years to bum down these British Customs houses?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: I should like to have notice of that Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Civil Defence Personnel (Uniform)

Mr. Ralph Etherton: asked the President of the Board of Trade how


many clothing coupons are demanded from Civil Defence personnel on the original issue of uniform including battle-dress, overcoat and boots; what subsequent demands are made, either at regular or irregular intervals; and whether he is aware that in some areas, after coupons have been surrendered on an original issue of uniform, subsequent substantial demands are made for coupons including coupons not yet valid?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): Full-time Civil Defence workers obtain their uniform, consisting of battledress, overcoat and boots, coupon-free, provided that they refund yearly to my Department, through their Local Authority, 18 coupons. The uniform itself is worth 43 coupons. Since the refund is made on an annual basis, irrespective of the dates on which the uniform is issued or replaced, wearers may use for this purpose any of the coupons in their current ration book, including those which will not become valid until later in the period.

Mr. Etherton: Can my right hon. Friend say what is the position of part-time workers?

Mr. Dalton: Part-time Civil Defence workers have not been required to refund any of their basic ration on the ground that they wear their uniform for such a small part of their working time that their advantage over non-uniform workers is negligible.

Mr. Etherton: In regard to the coupons which the Minister's Department is asking to be surrendered before their valid date, does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that it is an unfortunate example to ask for coupons before their valid date?

Mr. Dalton: Not at all. It is a great convenience for the workers concerned. As I explained, this uniform may be required for issue or replacement at any time during the year. The coupons in question do not pass between traders, but local authorities act as agents for the Board of Trade, and that is a matter for the convenience of the workers concerned.

Towels

Mr. Thorneycroft: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he

is aware of the large increase in the incidence of verminous heads, chiefly due to the fact that hairdressers throughout the country have for some time been unable to carry out cleansing and shampooing treatment owing to the shortage of towels; and will he, in the interest of public health, cause towels to be released to hairdressers for the purpose?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. I have no reason to think that the shortage of towels has resulted in an increase in the condition to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware the trade was approached some time ago by public authorities throughout the country to assist in this matter, and as towels are tools, will he consider it in that light?

Mr. Dalton: I am informed that the Hairdressers' Guild, who have been in touch with the Ministry of Health on the matter, have not said that in their view this unfortunate condition is due to a shortage of towels.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister consider issuing special coupons for towels, particularly for housewives?

Mr. Dalton: That is another question, to which I have previously given an answer.

Mr. Gallacher: I know, but it was not a good answer.

Small Traders

Mr. De la Bère: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the reviews which have recently been carried out by certain chambers of trade throughout the country, which reveal the plight of small shopkeepers, especially those whose turnover is between £1,000 and £5,000 a year, he can now state what additional proposals the Government intend to make to prevent the further closing down of these old-established small businesses?

Mr. Dalton: I am not aware of any recent reviews of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers, but I am keeping in close touch with the National Chamber of Trade. The proposals which I announced in this House on 13th October should be of material assistance to small shopkeepers, and, as I informed my hon. Friend on Tuesday last, I am now anxious fully to try out these proposals.

Mr. De la Bère: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that comprehensive reviews have been made by various chambers of trade throughout the country, and further, that these disclose that little men and little women engaged in trade with a small turnover before the war are being exterminated and eliminated daily; and will he really give the matter further consideration?

Mr. Dalton: I have already stated that I am in very close touch with representatives of the National Chamber of Trade, who will no doubt bring to me the information that comes to them from chambers of trade locally.

Mr. De la Bère: But the National Chamber of Trade is not absolutely comprehensive.

Sir Percy Harris: Is the President of the Board of Trade satisfied that the National Chamber of Trade really represents the small people in business?

Mr. Dalton: I have asked the various chambers of trade, and I have given an answer as to my relations with the National Chamber of Trade. I am very anxious to get into touch with all those who can assist me in this difficult problem.

Mr. Hannah: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this question of small traders is a very acute one?

Technical Books

Mr. Colegate: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the unsatisfactory position of the supply, of technical books; and whether he is prepared to arrange the supply of paper to publishers in such a way that all standard technical books may be available in sufficient quantities for students at technical schools and colleges?

Mr. Dalton: As my hon. Friend was informed by my right hon. Friends the Minister of Labour and the President of the Board of Education, on 19th November, while there has necessarily been some reduction in the publication of technical books, there appears at present to be no serious shortage of such books. Special arrangements have already been made to assist the publication of books of particular importance to the war effort, including technical books, and I am considering

further measures for increasing the supply of these types of books.

Bombed-out Families (Curtain Material)

Mr. Granville: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider increasing the number of coupons made available to bombed-out families to enable them to purchase curtains for one living room and one upstairs room, in order to save artificial light and black-out material?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. No curtain material, other than black-out cloth, is now being made. Black-out cloth is not rationed. As regards rationed materials, most of which needs black-out backing in any case, the fairest plan is that which I have adopted, namely, to confine coupon-free purchase of curtain material to one living room, so that as many bombed out families as possible may have a share: of the limited stocks which remain.

Mr. Granville: Will the right hon. Gentleman put himself into the position of one of these unfortunate families having to live in an upstairs room without proper curtain material; and has he fully considered the possibility of still further reducing the production of luxury material in this country in order to have something like equality of sacrifice?

Mr. Dalton: I have gone a great distance, so great as to provoke protests in some quarters from manufacturers of luxury material. If the hon. Member cares to assist me in more detail I shall be very glad. I am aiming at giving the fairest distribution among bombed-out families of the limited stocks which remain.

Agricultural Workers (Rubber Boots)

Mr. Granville: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to increase the supply of rubber boots for agricultural workers in shops in small market towns in agricultural areas?

Mr. Dalton: As I informed my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Brig.-General Clifton Brown) on Tuesday last, supplies of rubber boots are very limited, as a consequence of the loss to Japan of our principal sources of rubber supply. A fair share of these boots has been allocated to agricultural workers. Supplies are too small to permit of stocks being held in all retail shops, but I have


arranged that any particular shop which is without stocks shall be able to obtain the boots on presenting customers' buying permits to suppliers.

Mr. De la Bère: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how it is that Italian prisoners are able to have rubber boots whereas a lot of our own men who are working on the land have not the same facilities; does it seem right that the Italians should have better treatment than those who belong to this nation?

Mr. Dalton: I should like more evidence that that state of affairs is correct.

Mr. Granville: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how it is that you can go into a town and see rubber boots in the windows of shops and that when an agricultural worker goes to a shop in a small market town in Suffolk he is unable to purchase them; and will the right hon. Gentleman try to rectify the matter?

Mr. Dalton: I have already explained the means by which buying permits are issued to agricultural workers so that they can obtain boots.

Mr. Bossom: Will the right hon. Gentleman come to Kent where he will see agricultural workers without rubber boots and Italians walking round in rubber boots?

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC WARFARE (BLACK LISTED FIRMS)

Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare the total number of persons who now appear upon the Statutory Black List in Latin America and European countries, respectively; how far the List now corresponds with the American Proclaimed List; what machinery exists for the co-ordination of the two Lists; and whether he will make a statement as to the effectiveness of this device in reducing pro-enemy activities in neutral countries?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): On 16th November, 1942, there were 11,250 names on the Statutory List. Of this number, 7,832 were names of persons in Latin American countries, while 3,002 were names of persons in European neutral countries or their

colonies. The Statutory List corresponds very closely indeed with the United States Proclaimed List, and there are now less than a score of persons who appear on one List and not on the other. His Majesty's Representatives in the countries to which the Statutory List applies have instructions to keep in the closest touch with their United States colleagues, and it is now the normal practice for the British and United States Missions to make joint and simultaneous recommendations for inclusion in or deletion from the Lists to the Proclaimed List Committee in Washington and the Black List Committee in London. The Government of the United States is represented on the Black List Committee, while His Majesty's Government is similarly represented on the Proclaimed List Committee. Considerable evidence is now available regarding the combined effect of the two Lists. Generally speaking, neutral firms are showing a steadily increasing anxiety to avoid being listed. I am satisfied that among the European neutrals the Lists have deterred a substantial number of firms from dealing with or on behalf of our enemies, and have appreciably reduced the volume of trade between German Europe and adjacent neutral territories. In Latin America, and to a lesser extent in Europe, the Lists have tended to become a weapon of political as well as of economic warfare, since they have served to identify not only persons engaged in undesirable commercial activities but also those with Axis sympathies. The effectiveness of the Lists has been particularly marked in those Latin American countries which have adhered to the Allied cause, because in a number of cases the Governments concerned have taken steps to control the activities of listed persons.

Sir Herbert Williams: As answers from this Department are usually five times as long as those from other Departments, ought they not, Mr. Speaker, to be taken at the end?

Mr. Davidson: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that should United Nations troops enter into any of these countries, the people already on the Black List will not be given prominent positions?

Mr. Foot: That is a different question.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Requisitioned Buildings

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider, as an experiment, the appointment of caretakers in a certain number of buildings requisitioned by the War Office?

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): A considerable number of caretakers is being employed by the War Department to look after unoccupied requisitioned houses.

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for War how many officers have been reprimanded for damage done to buildings by troops under their command; and how many have been compelled to make a contribution towards the cost of such damage?

Sir J. Grigg: There is no record in the War Office of any case in the last year of any court-martial or summary trial arising out of the responsibility of officers for damage to property by troops under their command. Nor are there any records readily available of the number of officers who may have been censured by their superior officers or incurred financial penalties for this type of neglect.

Mr. Dugdale: Does that mean that the War Office does not take this particular subject seriously?

Sir J. Grigg: Not at all; it means that there has been a certain decentralisation and that the records in some of the Commands do not come to the War Office.

Mr. Mathers: In view of the damage which has been done, has the right hon. Gentleman in mind any means of preventing it and thereby removing a serious reproach on our troops?

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the increase in the number of buildings requisitioned by his Department, he will increase the number of inspectors detailed to carry out flying inspections of all such buildings?

Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir. The staff at present engaged on the inspection of requisitioned buildings is in general keeping abreast of its work, and I do not consider that the employment of more officers and men is justified?

Mr. Dugdale: Is the Minister aware that in one Command there are no fewer than 13,000 requisitioned buildings and that there is only one inspector, who has been able to cover only 300 buildings in three months?

Sir J. Grigg: The Claims Commission, too, assist in this work and have been doing so for a year.

Mixed Military Establishments (Staffing)

Mr. William Brown: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the report of the Cozens-Hardy Committee on the employment of military personnel on civilian duties in War Department establishments will be made available to Members of the House?

Sir J. Grigg: The Committee is essentially a Departmental Committee, and I should not propose to publish any reports it may render. Perhaps I may add that the hon. Member's Question does not accurately represent the Committee's terms of reference, which are, in short, "to examine the methods of staffing certain mixed military establishments."

Mr. Brown: If the report itself cannot be made available to us, will the Minister take an opportunity at a later stage of telling us what action was taken?

Sir J. Grigg: I will certainly consider that.

Film and Photographic Service

Sir William Davison: asked the Secretary of State for War whether in connection with the recently-established Sergeant-Photographer Corps in the Middle East for the supply of newspaper photographs to London and New York, he will consider allowing the names of the photographers, who for the most part do their work in the fighting-line, to appear on the photographs which they transmit?

Sir J. Grigg: As far as individual publicity is concerned, soldiers equipped with cameras are treated in the same way as the rest of the Army. It is not customary, therefore, publicly to connect the names of officers and men of the Army Film and Photographic Service with photographs taken by them in the normal course of their duty.

Sir W. Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these specially trained photographers were given the rank of sergeant


in order that they should mix with soldiers in the front line, the only difference being that they are armed with cameras instead of rifles; and as they cannot be identified with any military unit, what service could it be to the enemy if their names were published on the photographs?

Sir J. Grigg: My answer was not based on the security question but on the very sensible, or very appropriate, rule that all ranks of the Army do their work anonymously.

Sir W. Davison: But was not the rule made so that the enemy should not be able to identify particular units at the front, which does not apply in this case? Is there not far too much concealment of individual gallantry at the front, which could well be made public?

Sir J. Grigg: If it is a question of mentioning individual gallantry, I think it should be done for the fighting men first. One has only to consider the impossibility of doing that to answer my hon. Friend's question.

Army Council Instructions

Captain C. S. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will now reconsider his decision about placing Army Council Instructions in the Library of the House of Commons for the private reference of hon. Members?

Sir J. Grigg: Under an arrangement introduced in September last Army Council Instructions of general interest to all ranks are now summarised in the form of notices which are issued for posting on the notice boards of units throughout the Army. These summaries, which include summaries of Army Orders also, are issued in a series called "Notice Board Information." Copies of each of these notices on issue are placed in the Library of the House. I do not consider it desirable to go beyond the above arrangement, which I trust will enable hon. Members to keep themselves acquainted with the principal Army Council Instructions of general interest issued from time to time.

Women's Auxiliary Services (Pay)

Dr. Edith Summerskill: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the women in the Auxiliary

Services of the United States of America are being paid at the same rates as the men in the Services; and whether he will consider adopting the same principle?

Sir J. Grigg: As regards the first part of the Question, I have heard that this is so. I am not considering a departure from the present basis of paying women in the Army.

Dr. Summerskill: Does not the Minister think, in view of, the fact that these women are serving the country so magnificently, that the time has now arrived when they should be dealt with equitably in this matter?

Sir J. Grigg: That is a matter of opinion. I should be the last in the world to belittle or not to give full credit to the services that women are rendering, but the question of pay concerns many other Departments than mine.

Soldiers' Debtor Balances

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War how many cases involving the consideration of soldiers' debtor balances arising through overissue of cash have been dealt with since Army Council Instruction 368 was published on 18th February, 1942, and the total sum written off due to causes outside the soldier's own control; and whether he has any statement to make as to the working of this procedure?

Sir J. Grigg: I have no precise information as to the number of cases or the total sum written off, as separate records of cases dealt with under this Army Council Instruction have not been kept. From the general reports received on the procedure introduced as an experiment by this Army Council Instruction, it is clear that it has effected considerable improvement and is working smoothly. A considerable number of soldiers has been relieved of the effect of charges due to causes outside their own control. The new procedure is being continued.

Mr. Bellenger: As the Army Council itself issued these Instructions and, therefore, should have reports as to how the experiment is proceeding, will the Minister give instructions that the number of cases dealt with and the total amount of public money involved shall be available both to himself and to Members?

Sir J. Grigg: I do not think that would be in keeping with the policy of decentralisation which the Array Council has adopted during the last 18 months.

Auxiliary Territorial Service (Austrians)

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give an assurance that, in the absence of security reasons, opportunities will be afforded to Austrians serving in the Auxiliary Territorial Service to do work other than as cooks, orderlies and storekeepers, to which they are restricted at the present time?

Sir J. Grigg: I am afraid I cannot usefully add anything to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 10th November.

Mr. Mander: Does that mean that the Austrians referred to have no possibility of being employed other than in the instances described in the Question?

Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir. If the hon. Member reads my answer, he will see that that is not the case.

Overseas Service (Age Limit)

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his Department has now a definite fixed policy regarding the age at which a soldier can be sent on foreign service?

Sir J. Grigg: A soldier is not sent overseas until he is 19. This is the limit observed when whole units are sent abroad. Soldiers are, however, not usually sent overseas in drafts until they reach the age of 19½.

Mr. Davidson: If cases are submitted to the right hon. Gentleman concerning boys under that age and men of 47 years of age, will they be treated sympathetically by the War Office?

Sir J. Grigg: I will certainly look into them.

Mr. Cocks: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have in my pocket particulars of the case of a lad of 18 years of age who was sent abroad? Will he look into such cases?

Sir J. Grigg: I have said that I will.

Mr. McGovern: If a boy under 19 years of age is sent overseas and attention is drawn to the matter, will the right hon. Gentleman have the boy brought back?

Sir J. Grigg: I should require notice of that Question.

Home Guard

Mr. Touche: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that misunderstandings have arisen regarding the position of Civil Defence workers who are eligible for enrolment in List 2 of the Home Guard; and whether he can make a statement defining the obligations undertaken by such persons on signing the enrolment form?

Sir J. Grigg: A Civil Defence worker who is eligible for voluntary enrolment in the Home Guard must obtain the consent of the head of the Civil Defence service to which he belongs before enrolment. By signing the enrolment form he undertakes the same general obligations as other members of the Home Guard. But in practice he is placed in list (ii), which means that he will not be called out for Home Guard duty immediately the Home Guard is mustered, but will be released from Civil Defence to Home Guard duty when that course becomes operationally necessary. He is unlikely to be called out unless fighting breaks out in the vicinity. Until so called out he retains as a Civil Defence worker his obligations to his own service and the allocation of time between Civil Defence and Home Guard is a matter for local agreement. It is provided that, except in an emergency, no such individual should be required to carry out more than 48 hours' training and duty in all (whether Civil Defence including Fire Guard duty or Home Guard) in any period of four weeks.

Skilled Tradesmen

Mr. Wakefield: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that tradesmen in the Army skilled in trades in which there is a surplus are being used for unskilled work, whilst unskilled men are being trained as tradesmen; and will he take steps to give opportunity for these skilled tradesmen in surplus trades to be trained in other trades before calling for unskilled men?

Sir J. Grigg: It is not clear to me to which tradesmen my hon. Friend refers. All mechanical and electrical tradesmen are, or shortly will be, employed in their trades. Most men mustered as such in the building trades are in the Royal Engineers, which must always have a large number of skilled men of this type immediately available when engaged in active operations. All men in this corps


are classified by the Army as tradesmen. Others have become fully trained soldiers in fighting units and cannot at this stage in the war be removed without impairing the efficiency of those units. I am satisfied that no change is justified in the policy now followed by the Army in this question, a policy which was explained in some detail in Command 6339, but if my hon. Friend has any particular cases in mind which he considers should be looked into I will gladly do so if he will send me details.

Mr. Wakefield: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a large number of surplus woodworkers doing unskilled work and that these' men could be very quickly and easily trained to work in metal, in which trade the Army needs men?

Sir J. Grigg: This is a subject which has been debated very thoroughly and gone into very thoroughly, and I am afraid I could not deal with it within the limits of a Parliamentary answer, but I am quite ready to discuss it with my hon. Friend if he likes.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR

Mr. Leslie: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any information about the holding-up of letters and parcels sent to British prisoners in Germany; and what action has been taken to get the ban removed?

Sir J. Grigg: From extracts taken from prisoner of war letters in August it became apparent that a ban had been placed by the German authorities on the inward and outward correspondence of British prisoners of war in Germany. The Germans explained to the prisoners that this was a reprisal for delays in the transmission of mail from German prisoners of war. A protest was made through the Protecting Power against the German action stating that the correspondence from German prisoners had not been restricted. No reply has been received to this protest, but in September a large volume of mail from prisoners in Germany was released
by the German authorities. More recently, however, it has become clear that some restrictions are still in force. A further protest

against this breach of the Geneva Convention was made on 7th November, but no reply has yet been received. I am not aware that parcels sent to British prisoners in Germany have been held up, but if my hon. Friend has any evidence of this, I will gladly look into it.

Mr. Leslie: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable anxiety on the part of many people who have had no communications since September, and that according to reports, the Germans are deliberately holding them up because they allege that there is difficulty of communication with German prisoners in Canada and Australia? Will the Minister keep on urging that this ban should be removed?

Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox:: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has considered letters received from prisoners of war in Oflag IX A/H which state that, on 1st October, these men were deprived of all books, washing and shaving kit and all their clothes, except those then worn; that up till 15th October these articles had not been returned; and will he make representations, through the Protecting Power, as to the cause of this treatment?

Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir. Strong representations have been made about this unjustifiable action on the part of the German authorities.

Sir A. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend realise that at this camp, where the treatment was very good up to the end of September, it is alleged that this brutal treatment of the prisoners is a reprisal for something we did to German prisoners of war in the Red Sea in March? Will my right hon. Friend inquire into that and give the German Government no excuse for treating our men like this?

Sir J. Grigg: I do not think the German Government ever had any excuse, but I will certainly make assurance trebly sure.

Sir William Davison: Has the Red Cross found out whether the Germans give any reason for this scandalous breach of the Geneva Convention?

Sir J. Grigg: The Germans are apt to leave communications and protests unanswered for a very long time.

Mr. Liddall: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the bad sanitation at some of the prisoner-of-war camps in Italy, especially at Campo Pg 5, Pn 3100; and what steps he is taking to have such places made fit for human habitation?

Sir J. Grigg: I am aware of the deficiencies in sanitation in several Italian camps. Representations have been made by the Protecting Power, and I hope that the deficiencies are now being put right.

Viscountess Astor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that sanitation even in the best houses in Italy leaves much to be desired?

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE RAIDS, LONDON

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why three clubs were closed by the police on Wednesday, 28th October; can he name the clubs; and how long they are to be closed for?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): On the date in question three places—none of which was a club—were closed by an Order of the Commissioner of Police under the provisions of paragraph (1) of Defence Regulation 42c on evidence that there was drunkenness on the premises. Two of these places, known as "The Twelve" and "The New Tatler" have been closed for one year and the third known as "The Straight Away" for two years.

Oral Answers to Questions — SECONDARY SCHOOL SCHOLARSHIPS

Mr. Summers: asked the President of the Board of Education (1) what additional cost it is estimated would fall on the Exchequer if all those whose children obtained scholarships to secondary schools were allowed the full financial benefits accruing and the present means test before receipt of benefit were abolished;
(2) whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction felt by the parents of winners of scholarship awards to secondary schools

at the investigations held into their financial resources; and whether he will review the present practice in this regard so that the financial advantages of scholarships may be available to the parents of all those capable of attaining the necessary standard?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Ede): Without calling for a special return from local education authorities, I am unable to say what would be the precise financial effect of converting all special places in grant-aided secondary schools into free places. At a rough estimate, however, I should expect the additional annual expenditure involved to be of the order of £500,000, of which 50 per cent. would fall on the Exchequer. An additional sum would be required if maintenance allowances were given indiscriminately to all scholarship holders, but I can give no estimate of the cost. The whole question of fees and maintenance allowances in secondary schools is under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION (ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT)

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that he intends, subject to agreement with our Dominions, to make the materials of economic self-development available to all the world after the war in so far as raw materials, essential primary products and markets of the British Commonwealth of Nations are concerned?

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The policy of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom on this matter is stated in the fourth principle of the Atlantic Charter and in Article VII of the Mutual Aid Agreement of 23rd February, 1942.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: May I ask that the right hon. Gentleman's reply be communicated to Mr. Wendell Willkie, who was very critical of the statement made recently by the Prime Minister?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Organisation and Control

Mr. W. Brown: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take in


hand the reorganisation of the Civil Service with a view to securing an end of the situation in which the establishments of all Departments are controlled by the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury; the separation of the function of Permanent Secretary from that of the Head of the Civil Service; the establishment of a properly constituted personnel department in the shape of a reconstituted Civil Service Commission; and the abolition of the caste system of recruitment to the Civil Service?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): There are various implications in the Question, and more especially in the fourth part, which I cannot accept. Subject to that qualification the answer is in the negative.

Mr. Brown: Will the Chancellor make representations to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House with a view to the House being given an opportunity to discuss the whole question of the organisation of the Civil Service?

Sir K. Wood: The hon. Gentleman had better take up that matter through the usual channels.

Sir W. Davison: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the Deputy Prime Minister informed me in the House some weeks ago that the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury had no direct control over the head of any Government Department?

Sir K. Wood: I am sure that whatever my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said is correct.

Pensions

Mr. W. Brown: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give an estimate of the point to which the cost of living must rise before he will consider a review of the pensions of retired State servants?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. The question is hypothetical.

Mr. Brown: How long does the Chancellor of the Exchequer intend that the present situation of pensioners of the public Services should go on without any sort of remedy? Cannot he do something about this matter?

Sir K. Wood: I am afraid I have nothing to add to my answer.

Mr. Davidson: Is it the Chancellor's policy to give old age pensioners priority?

Sir K. Wood: That seems to go a little outside the Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Stock Exchange Dealings (Taxation)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to pre vent the rising trend on the Stock Ex change from developing into a dangerous boom, he will consider the adoption of a tax on capital appreciation on all trans actions or take other steps to the same purpose?

Sir K. Wood: I am not prepared to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion, and I do not think it necessary to take any other steps in this matter?

Mr. Stokes: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is as wrong to make profits out of Stock Exchange booms in war-time as to make profits out of munitions?

Sir K. Wood: I shall have to ponder over that.

Bank Rate

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the official rediscount rate of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York was recently reduced to one-half per cent.; and whether, in the light of this fact, he will cause the Bank of England to reconsider its decision to maintain its Bank Rate at 2 per cent.?

Sir K. Wood: I am aware of the change mentioned, but am not prepared to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Stokes: Arising out of that most unsatisfactory reply, will the right hon. Gentleman explain for what reason it is necessary to maintain the Bank Rate here at 2 per cent. when the Federal Reserve Bank of New York can reduce it to a half per cent.?

Special Note Issue, Algeria and Morocco

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the special money issued by the Bank of England for


our troops to spend in Morocco and Algeria is part of the fiduciary note issue authorised by Parliament?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. These notes, which are not issued by the Bank of England, but by the military authorities, are not legal tender in this country, and the question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Are not these notes issued by the military authorities dangerous? What is the backing for them?

Sir K. Wood: I could not accept my hon. Friend's suggestion about danger. It is very necessary for the military authorities. The backing is the obligation of the Government.

Bank Credit

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the introduction of a Bill to extend the principle of the Bank Charter Act, 1844, to govern the activities of the banking department of the Bank of England and the clearing house banks as to secure to His Majesty's Treasury the profits arising from the creation of bank credit in excess of a total volume to be determined and to provide for the control by Parliament of the volume of bank credit similar to that exercised over the volume of the fiduciary issue?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that our post-war programme of reconstruction will be considerably handicapped unless we have a comprehensive reform of the monetary and financial system?

Sir K. Wood: I know that is my hon. Friend's view.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is it my right hon. Friend's view?

Broadcasting Fees (Crown Servants)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will alter the regulation whereby servants of the Crown giving a broadcast, which does not form part of their official duties, have paid to them only half the fee that they would normally get for such a broadcast, so as to make it permissible for members of His Majesty's Forces to receive the full fee since, in many cases, they are stationed at some distance from the

broadcasting station and incur expenses in excess of those which would be normally incurred by servants of the Crown who are not members of the Armed Forces?

Sir K. Wood: In all cases where a servant of the Crown, whether military or civilian, receives half fee for a broadcast talk, free travelling and subsistence allowances on the appropriate scale are payable from official sources.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that this is really an inter-departmental ruling which has never received the sanction of the House of Commons?

Sir K. Wood: No, it is my responsibility.

Mr. De la Bère: The House of Commons is not responsible for my right hon. Friend's actions.

Bronze Coinage

Sir Stanley Reed: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the scarcity of copper, he will consider withdrawing the bronze coins from circulation and substitute smaller coins of a suitable alloy?

Sir K. Wood: A considerable economy, estimated at over 800 tons a year, in the consumption of copper for bronze coinage has already been effected by discontinuing the minting of pence. The withdrawal of existing coin and substitution of lighter pieces has been considered, but the saving in material would not justify the inconvenience to the public of the change and the expenditure of labour involved in recall, melting and re-coinage.

Sir S. Reed: Is this not a favourable opportunity to consider getting rid of the dirtiest, most insanitary and most cumbersome bronze coinage in the world, especially as so many automatic machines are out of service?

Sir K. Wood: I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate the difficulties I have mentioned.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Could not my right hon. Friend make one single coin of 2½d. instead of three coins of two pennies and a halfpenny?

Sir K. Wood: I must ask for notice of that Question.

Parcels from Oversea Troops (Duty)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in the United States of America no duty is charged on parcels of limited value received from American soldiers and sailors in Asia and Africa; and whether he will arrange for a like exemption in respect of small presents sent to this country by British troops, etc., abroad?.

Sir K. Wood: I have no information on the subject of the first part of the Question. With regard to the second part, I regret that I cannot see my way to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Keeling: Is it the loss of revenue or administrative difficulties which prevent the proposal being adopted?

Sir K. Wood: If my hon. Friend will put a Question down, I will give a full explanation.

Purchase Tax (Infants' Articles)

Wing-Commander James: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to lighten the burden upon parents of young children, he will consider the removal of Purchase Tax upon articles, such as perambulators, solely used for infants?

Sir K. Wood: Perambulators, and garments and footwear suitable for young children's wear, and not containing silk or fur skin have always been exempt from Purchase Tax. I am afraid it would not be possible to provide for the exemption of every kind of domestic article which may be used for infants.

Viscountess Astor: Would it not be possible to exempt perambulators? They are of enormous value, and they are difficult to get?

Sir K. Wood: They are already free of Purchase Tax.

Requisitioned Property (Compensation)

Mr. Hammersley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that when manufacturing premises are compulsorily closed in order to concentrate production, and are subsequently requisitioned, in assessing the compensation to be paid under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, valuers on behalf of the Government seek to prove that these premises have little or no letting value

as manufacturing premises; and whether he will give instructions that this procedure be abandoned?

Sir K. Wood: The Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, provides that the compensation payable in respect of the requisitioning of land shall be a sum equal to the rent which might reasonably be expected to be payable by a tenant in occupation of the land during the period for which possession of the land is retained, under a lease granted immediately before that period. When assessing the compensation rent payable in respect of a requisitioned factory, regard is accordingly had to all the circumstances existing at the time of the requisition which would affect the rent that a tenant might be expected to pay for the factory, including the fact that it could not be used for the production of the goods formerly manufactured there.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEPARTMENTAL ORDERS

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the large number of Departmental regulations which do not form part of Parliamentary legislation and the confusion which exists in the minds of the public as to the category to which they belong, he will have set out for public information a list of such regulations as come under this category since the outbreak of the war?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): The hon. Member is presumably referring not to the Defence Regulations made under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts, all of which are laid before Parliament, but to Departmental orders made under some of those Regulations. I would refer him to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Kennington (Mr. Wilmot) on 8th September last, which explained where complete lists of such orders may be obtained by the public. Copies of these lists and of the orders themselves will be found in the Library of this House.

Mr. De la Bère: Does not my right hon. Friend remember that the Chancellor of the Exchequer this very moment admitted taking action on these lines? Is he not further aware that many people


will think that Parliament is responsible because it is passing all these orders? I blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His shoulders are broad.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS (FUEL ECONOMY)

Sir Robert Rankin: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he will cause the railway companies to appoint full-time fuel economy officers in each of the main works and in each region of the line to act in collaboration with the executive officers concerned and with the wardens in each shop and set of premises.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): In order to secure the utmost economy in the use of fuel by the railways, the general managers have personally accepted responsibility for applying all the necessary measures. I hope and believe that this will prove to be the most effective way of carrying out the purpose which my hon. Friend has in view.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALLIED GOVERNMENTS AND EMBASSIES, LONDON (PETROL)

Mr. Ralph Etherton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what basis petrol is allotted to the various Allied Governments and Embassies in London; and whether consideration and encouragement are given to those who use small motor-cars and discouragement to those whose fleet consists exclusively of large high-powered motor-cars?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Richard Law): Petrol is allotted to the Allied Governments and Embassies in London, as to other foreign Embassies and Legations here, on the basis of their ascertained requirements. The question is constantly reviewed and economies are brought about wherever possible. The attention of the Allied Governments in London has lately been invited to the desirability of using small cars where these will suffice, in order to economise in the rubber needed for tyres. The adoption of this suggestion would naturally mean economy in the use of petrol as well.

Mr. Etherton: Will my hon. Friend draw the attention of certain Powers to

the example of the Fighting French Diplomatic Corps?

Mr. Law: I have told my hon. Friend the steps that we have taken in regard to the Allied Governments. There is no reason to suppose that they are making any abuse of these facilities.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Is my hon. Friend aware that Lord Gort rides a bicycle? Would not Ministers in this country try to follow suit?

Mr. Law: I do ride a bicycle.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

Diphtheria (Immunisation)

Mr. Leach: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the differences of opinion in the medical profession as to the utility and safety of immunisation again diphtheria and recent admissions by medical practitioners in medical magazines of severe and fatal cases of diphtheria in immunised children, he will arrange for an inquiry into the matter by a small committee, on which opponents of the practice shall have some representation, with a view to ascertaining whether and to what extent the claims made on its behalf are justified by experience?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for East Middlesbrough (Mr. A. Edwards) on 10th November.

Mr. Leach: Can the hon. Lady give an indication of what the answer was?

Miss Horsbrugh: It was as follows:
I have seen the pamphlet mentioned. The case for immunisation against diphtheria is fully supported by medical opinion and practical experience in other countries, and, as advocacy of immunisation has been the Government's considered policy for some time past, I do not think there would be any advantage in the appointment of a committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1942; col. 2282, Vol. 383.]

Mr. Leach: May I take it that the Ministry is actually afraid of going into the matter in full?

Miss Horsbrugh: No. We went into it in full some time ago and came to the conclusion as stated in the answer.

Sir Francis Fremantle: If the Government make up their minds that the case for immunisation is fully proved, will they take steps to arrest the hon. Member for causing the death of innumerable children?

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not bring accusations of that kind against another hon. Member.

Sir F. Fremantle: It was not an accusation; it is a definite fact against a Government policy which has been decided.

Venereal Disease

Mr. Boothby: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the serious increase of venereal disease in this country and to the inadequate measures which have so far been taken to combat it; and whether he will give immediate directions to the Departments concerned to neglect no step which can be taken to encourage the use of every kind of preventive measure and to stop the spread of infection?

Miss Horsbrugh: The increase of venereal disease has been receiving my right hon. Friend's close attention in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and my hon. Friend will be aware of the Defence Regulation for combating this problem which has been laid before the House. I would also refer him to the replies which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave on this subject on 17th November, and to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) on 19th November.

Mr. Boothby: Is my hon. Friend aware that this Defence Regulation is quite inadequate to combat this problem? Is it the intention of the Government to initiate a propaganda campaign throughout the country?

Miss Horsbrugh: If my hon. Friend will refer to the reply to the hon. Member for Maldon on 19th November, he will see what publicity and further educational remedies are to be undertaken.

Mr. Davidson: In the consultations with the Secretary of State for Scotland on this matter was considereration given to the use of the various organisations in-Scotland which have been combating this evil for many years?

Miss Horsbrugh: I know that consultations have taken place, but I would like a Question put down as to the details.

Sir W. Davison: Is my hon. Friend aware that the publicity on this matter is inadequate and that the people likely to be affected are not aware of the facilities available and the necessity of prompt action which will be kept secret?

Miss Horsbrugh: If my hon. Friend will look at the reply given to the hon. Member for Maldon on 19th November, he will see that further publicity and education on this matter are being initiated.

Mrs. Tate: If my right hon. Friend is as concerned as he should be about this matter, will it be possible to ask why there have not been a larger number of and better clinics set up in the last few years?

Miss Horsbrugh: There have been extra clinics set up in the last few years, but if my hon. Friend will look at the reply given to the hon. Member for Maldon, she will see what is how being done with publicity and education and increase of clinics.

Dr. Summerskill: Has the Department considered compulsory notification, a course which is advocated by many medical authorities?

Miss Horsbrugh: The Department has considered many schemes, and the scheme that is now before the House in this Regulation is that for which it is thought desirable to get sanction from this House.

Mr. Boothby: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at an early opportunity.

Viscountess Astor: May I ask—

Mr. Speaker: The question will be raised on the Adjournment.

GOVERNMENT BORROWING (NEW WAR BONDS ISSUE)

Sir K. Wood: With the permission of the House, I should like to make a statement about our borrowing programme. At present two market loans are on offer—2½ per cent. National War Bonds, 1949–51, and 3 per cent. Savings Bonds, 1960–70. The total of the current issue of Savings Bonds is now about


£206,000,000, and I propose to continue that issue for the time being. The total of the current issue of National War Bonds has now reached £673,000,000, and I propose to discontinue the issue at the close of business on 30th November.
As from 1st December, and thereafter until further notice, subscriptions will be invited to a new issue of National War Bonds. The rate of interest will be 2½ per cent., and the Bonds will be issued at par. They will be repaid at par on 1st March, 1953, at the latest, but there will be an option to the Treasury to redeem them at par on or after 1st March, 1951. The maximum currency of the Bonds is thus 10 years 3 months, as against 9 years 9½ months for the current issue, and represents a further improvement in the terms on which the Treasury is able to borrow.
The need to finance as much as possible of our war expenditure by our market loans is as great as ever, and I appeal to all investors to subscribe as much as they can to the new issue, or, if it equally meets their needs, to the issue of Savings Bonds.

Mr. Bellenger: Will the holders of the old loan be entitled to participate in the new issue? What is the real purpose of making a new issue other than the slightly extended term of the period of the loan?

Sir K. Wood: It is generally the custom when an issue has reached the proportions that this has done to turn to some other issue, and in this respect we are able to borrow on better terms. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put the first part of his Supplementary Question on the Paper.

Mr. Loftus: Will the House have an opportunity to discuss at an early date the whole policy of borrowing?

Sir K. Wood: That is a question which must be addressed to the Leader of the House.

BILL PRESENTED

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL

"to continue certain expiring laws"; presented by Captain Crookshank; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed. [Bill 2.]

Orders of the Day — KING'S SPEECH

DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS [Sixth Day.]

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question—[11th November]:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:

Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 'Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—[Mr. A. G. Walkden.]

Question again proposed.

Mr. Stokes: It would be out of place to start a speech to-day without offering congratulations to the new Leader of the House. I personally wish him an enjoyable voyage through what will certainly be very stormy waters. I find myself to-day in an unexpected position, having attempted during the last five Sittings to catch your eye, Sir, after having risen on no fewer than 39 occasions. It was not until the gathering gloom of Thursday afternoon that your Deputy caught my eye. I naturally with some humility wondered whether I should continue to-day, but I consulted some of my hon. Friends, and they insisted that one or two of the things I wished to say to the House were of such importance that I ought to continue.
Therefore, I crave the patience of the House for a few minutes and wish to assure hon. and gallant Members who are here to discuss the Army that I shall not stand long in their way, and as they are here in such large numbers they can surely force the Government to suspend the Rule if they really choose to do so. There are only four points with which I wish to deal: one is a personal one, one has to do with the Army, and two are what I call burning questions of national importance. I do not want to waste time in indulging with others in the various congratulations which have been expressed by speakers throughout this long Debate, but it would be churlish if I were not to include myself among their number by

congratulating everybody, including the critics, over what has happened.
To deal first with the personal matter. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite), with his usual courtesy, told me he was going to say something about me in the Debate, and I think I ought to get myself straight with the House and the country on the point he raised. In part of his speech he said:
Germany…is now receiving unpalatable and ever-increasing doses of her own medicine, a fact which is causing great satisfaction throughout this country, though it is viewed with displeasure alike by Dr. Goebbels and the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) I hope I am not doing the hon. Member an injustice, but I received a communication from him on the subject of night bombing and I gathered that he disapproved of it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1942; col. 117, Vol. 385.]
My hon. and gallant Friend did not quote the document, and I have never had an opportunity of seeing him until to-day, but I need only quote from a speech which I made, I think it was at Carnarvon, in June of this year:
Churchillian strategy of bad tanks and bombing planes should give way to the production of ships and fighting planes. The bombing of Cologne in my view was morally wrong, as no real effort was made to limit the targets to military objectives, but it was strategic lunacy if it called away from the protection of our fast dwindling fleet and merchant shipping one single plane needed for their protection.
I do not withdraw from that position for one moment. I know that I hold an unpopular view on this subject, but women and little children are women and little children to me, wherever they live, and it fills me with absolute nausea to think of the filthy task that many of our young men are being invited to carry out. I know this is a minority view, but what is more important in the eyes of the House is the question of protecting our battle fleet and our merchant shipping, and no less authorities than Lord Hankey and Lord Winster, in another place, and Sir Percy Noble and Sir Max Horton have all been pressing that more and more bombing planes should be allocated to them in order to safeguard the Western and South-Western approaches, which are really the only places where we can lose this war.
This Debate is to deal with the Army, and my second point concerns the Army. The Prime Minister, speaking of the Forces in Egypt and Libya, said "the


bright gleam has caught the helmets of our soldiers." That is a sufficiently romantic term, but I wonder whether our soldiers, sailors and airmen would not as well like to catch the gleam from the glitter of gold and silver in the Chancellor's Treasury. Time and time again in this House during the past six or eight months questions concerning Service pay and allowances have been raised, and we have had no satisfaction from the Government. I do hope that at the earliest possible moment the Government will deal with this matter, and will not forget the R.N.V.R. among others. The Prime Minister said that "we are entitled to rejoice only on condition that we do not relax." That is a view with which I entirely, concur, and I can assure my right hon. Friend that the critics will not relax. The matter that I want to deal with concerns tanks. I have been into battle across, the Floor of the House with the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for War, and the Production Departments on "this question, and would like to remind the House of some of the things that have been said. In Washington on 26th December, 1941, the Prime Minister said:
For the first time we have fought the enemy with equal weapons.
He came back from his successful American trip to repeat on 27th January, 1942:
Upon the whole we have met him (Rommel) with equal weapons.
On 11th November, 1942, after his visit to the troops in Egypt and Libya, he said:
Alas, they had no weapons adequate for the fight.
So now we have the truth. It is exactly what his critics have been saying all the time. My only conclusion is that the Prime Minister was deceiving the enemy. How he succeeded in doing that, having regard to the number of tanks they had captured already, I altogether fail to understand. In so far, at any rate, as heavy tanks go, the battle was a success in Egypt and Libya this time, very largely on account of supplies from America, and it is a disgraceful thing that we are not so far advanced in oar tank design and production even yet to have a machine comparable to the German Mark III and the German Mark IV. On 2nd July this year he said that he had consulted the highest authorities in 1940 when deciding on the new tank, which ultimately turned out to be the

Churchill tank. I can only tell the House that, on authority which I have seen and shall be glad to show to any hon. Member, though I am not going to quote it here, in May, 1940, the Government were assured that the Churchill tank, known then by a number, would not be very good when produced, and I think when Service members speak we shall hear something about its performance in the field. I do not want to go into a long dissertation on tank production, although I have a lot of notes on the subject, but it is an appalling thought to those engaged in production that some sum of the order of £50,000,000 or £70,000,000 has been expended on a machine which was never properly tested before being put into production and which has absolutely cluttered up the workshops of this country. While "unbattleworthy" may be too strong a word, it is very near it. While still on the subject of tanks I would remind the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War said at Cardiff the other day:
We have new tanks coming into production that are better than any our forces have had before.
That would not be difficult:
I have seen them and they are better even than anything produced by the Germans, the Italians or the Japs, and better than any tank in the world, and the effect of this tank on the future of the war is incalculable.
That speech was made on 20th September, 1942. The simple question I wish to ask my right hon. Friend—and I will give way to him if he wishes to reply—is this: Is he quite sure that he is right?
The next point with which I wish to deal concerns the losses that certain sections of our troops, the sappers particularly, had in Libya, and on that I wish to ask why there is as yet no minesweeping tank. In the last war the tanks used to go on in advance to clear the way for the infantry, but now the infantry have to go ahead to make way for the tanks, although in 1939 proposals were put forward to produce a machine which would go out and clear the mines from minefields. It did not need a great military genius to see that one of the answers to tank attack was a minefield, and I want to learn some day from the right hon. Gentleman why it was that such a machine was not proceeded with. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe


(Mr. Cocks) has said, "The whole of tank production is in a muddle." It is in a muddle for one reason and one reason only, and that is that it has been left in the hands of what I call a half-baked crowd of motor mechanics when it should have been in the hands of people who understand the engineering industry and shipbuilding. I suggest that what is wanted and what we should insist upon is an inquiry into this whole matter, an inquiry which would report to this House and not merely to the Prime Minister.
The first of my two burning questions is one which is exercising the minds of everybody up and down the country today. It is, "Why Darlan?" It is no use burking that question. The country had better know the kind of person we are dealing with, and I do not think I can do better than read the Order of the Day issued on 6th May, 1942, by Darlan to the French troops when we went to Madagascar. This is a free translation of the French version—the Foreign Secretary will correct me if it is wrong:
Once more the Anglo-Saxons instead of fighting their enemies are looking for an easier victory by attacking a French Colony far away from Paris. The Marshal has ordered you to defend Madagascar and I know that you will patriotically respond to this appeal. Hold high and strong the honour of the flag. Defend to the limit of your ability and make the British pay as dearly as possible for their highwayman's act. All France, all the Empire are with you at heart. Never forget that the English betrayed us in Flanders, that they traitorously attacked us at Mers-el-Kebir, Dakar and in Syria; that they have murdered civilians in Paris; that they have attempted to starve the women and children at Djibouti. Defend the honour of France. One day, England shall pay. Long live France.
The question which I want to ask is whether the B.B.C. will be allowed to re-broadcast that to the nation to-night so that the people may know, or whether the Prime Minister, with his red-headed Goebbels, will sit on it and prevent the nation from learning the truth and of having a realisation of the kind of man whom the Government are allowing to hold French control in North Africa?
That brings me to my next point. This is a very grave matter. It has come to my knowledge within the last 48 hours that it was intended on Sunday that General de Gaulle should broadcast to Europe in the European service. By a long-standing arrangement with the Foreign Office and the Secretary of State

for War, the script, I am informed, was submitted for approval and after some discussion apparently was approved. [HON. MEMBERS: "By whom?"] By the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. What happened subsequently? It was suppressed by the Prime Minister, and so no broadcast took place. [HON. MEMBERS: "Is this correct?"] This is correct so far as I know. I have not access to all the archives of the Foreign Office, but my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in his place, and can tell us.
We on this side, I may say, are very seriously disturbed at the sudden appearance everywhere of the forces of reaction, and I want to ask to what part of that script did the Prime Minister take exception? There cannot have been anything very bad in the script, otherwise my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would not have agreed to it. I think the House of Commons ought to know just what it was the Prime Minister thought was bad, so that we may know where we are upon this matter. We ask why General de Gaulle, the head of the Fighting French in this country, and recognised as such by the Government, is disallowed from broadcasting at this moment. It is very humiliating for a man in his position When, even after having got my right hon. Friend's approval for what he proposed to say, he should be prevented from speaking. All the time Darlan is broadcasting from Africa without even mentioning the name of the man who is the leader of the Fighting French. Everybody is very uneasy about this. What it comes to is this, that people are saying, "Why should we sacrifice our lives and all we have got, just to make the world safe for the Darlans and others of that ilk?" It is necessary that that matter should be cleared up at once.
During the week-end we had some Cabinet changes. The last time we had Cabinet changes five people who had nothing whatever to do with the disasters which then occurred went out, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) came in. Now my right hon. and learned Friend goes out. He was the only man there who had nothing to do but to study the war, and who comes into replace him? My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and Minister of Home Security, for whom I have the greatest regard, but I would


point out that already he has the cares of two heavy Departments on his shoulders, and it seems to me an astonishing move. Why has it been made? Is it the case that the forces of reaction are at work again? I am wondering whether the next victim is to be the Archbishop of Canterbury, and whether, some time or other, an attempt will be made to unfrock him. If so, I should be glad to rally to his side. But the whole situation at present is one which is puzzling the nation.
That brings me to the second burning question which I desire to raise. It is, What are we fighting for? Are we fighting for the Darlans of the world? We all know, and those of us who sit on this side of the House have studied closely, the astonishing paradox that when war is on there is plenty for everybody. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has no difficulty in raising money; there are plenty to eat and materials available in abundance. In this connection I call the attention of the House to some remarks made by the Prime Minister on 12th October. He said:
Here in the fourth year of a world war more people in Scotland are to-day getting three square meals a day than ever before.
He went on to say that
Glasgow boys of 13 were to-day nearly three pounds heavier than boys of the same age before the war.
I suppose fattening for the slaughter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh" and "Shame."] It was a disgraceful remark to be able to make. What does it mean? Are we fighting so that when the war is over we can go back to two meals a day and to children who are three pounds lighter? Then the Prime Minister has said, "What we have we hold." What a silly remark. Would it not have been a more statesmanlike remark and a great encouragement to everybody to have said to all the world, "What we have we will pool with anybody who will come in and collaborate with us"? [Interruption.] I am not going to be led aside by any interruptions, and I propose to conclude very shortly. It is all very well to sing as they sang at Edinburgh, "Keep right on to the end of the road." It is a grand song, and Sir Harry Lauder, I am sure, sang it well. But we know that the road before us is a pretty thorny one, and we would like to know where it leads to. It is time that the Government woke up and

gave us a policy. When I and some of my hon. Friends here were pressing the
Government for a statement of peace aims, we were told, "We cannot do anything about that now; we should embarrass the Americans, and they might not come into the war." Now the Americans have come in and this Government do not dare to do anything, because they have to move to the tune which is played by the piper in New York.
I shall not delay the House further today. I hope on some other occasion I shall have the good luck to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and then I may have an opportunity of developing some of the philosophies in which I believe and the economic changes which I desire. But I warn the Government that we are tired of waiting and that we want a little on account now. It is no use my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol standing up at that Box for 50 minutes and talking absolutely nothing to us, telling us that we have to compromise, that we have to do without, and that we cannot do anything in war-time. What nonsense. What you cannot get done in war-time, you will never get done in peace-time, and the Government will have to take action now. If they fail to do so, it will be a betrayal of all the fighting men who are asking just the sort of questions which I am asking. A little time ago a constituent of mine, a very capable young man, brilliant at his work and in every way qualified to speak for the youth of the country, wrote to me that he was perfectly willing to fight—[Interruption.] I do not understand the interruption, but if the hon. Member who made it will repeat it, I will gladly reply. This young man, as I say, wrote to me:
I am only too willing and glad to join in the common effort but the awful thought which I have is this that the same old men who ruined the world for my father have now ruined it for me. If you and your colleagues in the House of Commons allow those same old men to have anything to do with the making of the peace, they will lose it, and you will have betrayed one and all of us.
It is our responsibility to see that that betrayal does not take place.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): One is tempted to reply to the speech that we have just heard, but I beg, Mr. Speaker, to call your attention to the fact that—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—I must keep to the


arrangement that has been made.—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—Will hon. Gentlemen allow me to make my statement? A reply will, of course, be made to the speech to which we have listened, in the course of the general Debate. Certainly it is going to be made, but at this moment we must go on with the Debate.

Mr. Maxton: I understand that we are to go into Secret Session and that the right hon. Gentleman's purpose in getting up was to call attention to the presence of Strangers; but surely the speech made by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) is not to go out to the world without some reply from the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that if I were to reply here and now to it, I should exhaust my right to speak in the forthcoming Debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Of course, I am in the hands of the House. It is my duty to interpret the wishes of the House. An arrangement has been come to, and Members have come here for the express purpose of discussing a particular subject. I have said that they shall have that opportunity, and, as far as I am concerned, they shall have that opportunity. Therefore, I beg to call attention—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

Mr. Shinwell: May we have one point cleared up now? I quite appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's intention. He wants to keep to an arrangement, and that is the proper thing to do; but at what part of the general Debate does he propose to intervene? Obviously it cannot be today. How does it come in? Will he explain that?

Mr. Eden: Certainly. I shall see that an opportunity is made for that. It is perfectly fair and proper to do it. I should like to do it now. I have the choice of doing that and depriving hon. Members of a good deal of the time for

which the arrangement has been made. I say to the House that if hon. Members will be good enough to accept my assurance—I will try to put it as clearly as I can—that speech will, of course, be answered. I will make myself responsible for seeing that it is answered at the earliest possible moment. I had no notice from the hon. Member. I wish he had given me notice that he was going to suggest there has been a breach between myself and the Prime Minister. I think he should have given me notice.

Mr. Stokes: Is it true?

Mr. Eden: As it is, there is no difference between myself and the Prime Minister—none whatever. I should like the House to stand by the arrangements that we have made. I will undertake that, at the first opportunity, if necessary by some rearrangement, a reply will be made to that speech.

Mr. Granville: If a private-notice Question is put down for the next Sitting Day, will the right hon. Gentleman give the House, the country and the world a comprehensive reply on this subject?

Mr. Eden: I will certainly consider what I can say in reply to a private-notice Question. I want to keep my word and the promise I have given to Service Members and I now beg to call attention to the fact that Strangers are present.

Orders of the Day — SECRET SESSION

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 89, put the Question, "That Strangers be ordered to withdraw."

Question agreed to.

Strangers withdrew accordingly.

[The remainder of the Sitting was in Secret Session.]